Either the spouse of an in vitro fertilized child is recognized as a legal parent or it's not.
That's the reason this has continually been struck down, because it's telling as hell that they just won't ban it across the board. This isn't about anything other than naked bigotry.
Site it as precedent to throw those 3 judges out with impeachment.
You aren't gonna impeach anyone. Not even close. Given the map Democrats are barely capable of scrapping together a bare majority it would take to maybe pack the courts. It's basically impossible for them to get anywhere near the numbers needed to even potentially impeach a justice.
Site it as precedent to throw those 3 judges out with impeachment.
You aren't gonna impeach anyone. Not even close. Given the map Democrats are barely capable of scrapping together a bare majority it would take to maybe pack the courts. It's basically impossible for them to get anywhere near the numbers needed to even potentially impeach a justice.
Yeah, given the makeup of the states responsible for the Senate, even getting the right number of Senators isn't enough.
Manchin might, I stress MIGHT, be willing to remove the filibuster. And there's a non-zero chance he would be on board with packing the courts. But I don’t see him ever being in favor of impeachment of Justices, let alone three.
And there may be a dozen or so Senators you could elect in certain states that would be to the left of Manchin. But even if a Senate had 100 Democrats, 34+ would only get there by being to the right of Manchin.
Only way a Justice gets impeached, is if there's clear and irrefutable non-partisan criminality involved. And even then, Republicans would be resistant. Because all Republicans are assholes.
Of the six Roman Catholic Justices only Sotomayor said she would have granted the request (to be fair, Gorsuch is RC adjacent). I had foolishly hoped that Barret would actually follow church teaching and vote to stay the execution, but as usual they all seem to adhere to the Scalia doctrine that RC doctrine is wrong and that America's racist death machine is A O K!
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Sigh... yeah you're right... And too be fair, this is consistent for Barret anyway since she previously said that as a Roman Catholic she should abstain from any decisions involving the death penalty. Still though, there are going to be a lot more of these with the current makeup of the court.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Sigh... yeah you're right... And too be fair, this is consistent for Barret anyway since she previously said that as a Roman Catholic she should abstain from any decisions involving the death penalty. Still though, there are going to be a lot more of these with the current makeup of the court.
No, there will be a moratorium on Federal executions in just over a month. Which is why they have to get all these killings in now. The next President isn't pro-life.
+18
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Conservative SCOTUS is totally unprincipled Calvinball. They adhere to their religious beliefs when it's convenient for them, and discard it just as easily.
I am myself probably a bit biased, since I have no faith in the US legal system whatsoever.
Prosecutors put innocent people in jail because they can't afford a defense and prosecutors just want to win, defense attorneys get guilty people off if they're rich, judges rule based on political belief and not the law. It's all arbitrary and devoid of justice.
Conservative SCOTUS is totally unprincipled Calvinball. They adhere to their religious beliefs when it's convenient for them, and discard it just as easily.
I am myself probably a bit biased, since I have no faith in the US legal system whatsoever.
Prosecutors put innocent people in jail because they can't afford a defense and prosecutors just want to win, defense attorneys get guilty people off if they're rich, judges rule based on political belief and not the law. It's all arbitrary and devoid of justice.
Working in the courts will show you how much of the justice system is built on personal relationships, it really can be totally arbitrary.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
one of the most pervasive and insidious myths in our society is the idea there is a Correct Law and that judges eschew their personal experiences and biases in order to rule Correctly according to that higher principle
Sigh... yeah you're right... And too be fair, this is consistent for Barret anyway since she previously said that as a Roman Catholic she should abstain from any decisions involving the death penalty. Still though, there are going to be a lot more of these with the current makeup of the court.
Wait, really? That seems like the most ethical course of action, and I would be pleasantly shocked out of my mind if she actually did that.
I would like our judges to put their deeply held religious beliefs on mute when they rule, but that's generally not how deeply held beliefs work for most humans.
one of the most pervasive and insidious myths in our society is the idea there is a Correct Law and that judges eschew their personal experiences and biases in order to rule Correctly according to that higher principle
There's been multiple studies done that show judges handing out harsher punishments later in the workday than they do in the morning. Or that they rule more harshly when they're hungry. Or their favorite football team has lost. It really is a crap shoot.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Ah yes, the fraught times when Cleveland's first term gave way to Benjamin Harrison and Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan realized you can buy the presidency.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
Wait, so I can just file whatever state level claims I want, as long as I pretend I myself am a state?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
Wait, so I can just file whatever state level claims I want, as long as I pretend I myself am a state?
With this line of thought, we may have both solved the Senate problem, and also made it so much worse.
... Senator Brody.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+26
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
one of the most pervasive and insidious myths in our society is the idea there is a Correct Law and that judges eschew their personal experiences and biases in order to rule Correctly according to that higher principle
There's been multiple studies done that show judges handing out harsher punishments later in the workday than they do in the morning. Or that they rule more harshly when they're hungry. Or their favorite football team has lost. It really is a crap shoot.
I've always said this was one of the biggest messages of Serial (the podcast). Once the system sets it's eyes on you, it can destroy your life easily and for utterly arbitrary reasons and there's little you can do about it.
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
Wait, so I can just file whatever state level claims I want, as long as I pretend I myself am a state?
No this is a friend of the court brief. Which, i think, you generally are free to file, but not sure. It obviously requires that there already be a case for you to file it for. I don't know about guarantees/whatever about it being read/accepted though.
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
This is kind of another level, in terms of cognitive dissonance. I would love to see their redline version of the constitution where new states don't need to be accepted the union but still have equal standing in the courts.
Or any standing!
It's so clear cut that it manages to make less sense than the whole "Ah-ha! But I am !ArbitraryDescriptor, and this warrant is for ArbitraryDescriptor!"
You do not need standing to file an amicus curiae. Its basically just a formal letter telling the court how you think they should rule. Think of it like trying to do the judges homework for them.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Barr just really wants to kill some motherfuckers before they make him stop.
Today’s case supplies just the latest example. New York’s Governor has asserted the power to assign different color codes to different parts of the State and govern each by ex-ecutive decree. In “red zones,” houses of worship are all but closed—limited to a maximum of 10 people. In the Orthodox Jewish community that limit might operate to exclude all women, considering 10 men are necessary to establish a minyan, or a quorum. In “orange zones,” it’s not much different. Churches and synagogues are limited to a maxi-mum of 25 people. These restrictions apply even to the largest cathedrals and synagogues, which ordinarily hold hundreds. And the restrictions apply no matter the precautions taken, including social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and dis-infecting spaces between services.
At the same time, the Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor con-siders essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?
My Dad and Stepmom just started going back to church based on the logic "if people can go in and out of Walmart all day every day, why can't churches have people in them for two hours once or twice a week?"
I'd need to check things, but I think there are like only four other executions that will be rammed through before Trump's shitty administration ends. Doesn't make these people any less monsters. I don't really care if the people they are executing deserve the death penalty because I oppose the concept given how shit our species has been at handing out impartial judgments that have all the facts. I don't for an instant doubt that we've likely executed innocent people because either shitty cops tampered with the evidence and/or some shithead prosecutor wanted a win more than they cared about having justice served. One innocent executed is one to fucking many. The death penalty doesn't solve anything anyways. It's extremely expensive because there are attempts to avoid fucking over innocent people and it's just vengeful shit by people with poor impulse control, that just want an excuse to justify being shitty. If there are concerns about someone being a risk to society, put them in a jail that is really hard to escape from, then the threat to society they pose is greatly diminished and if someone fucked up, well you can at least reverse some of the damage here. You put an innocent individual to death and you can't reverse that once you find out you fucked up.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Phoenix-D on
+32
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
Scalia ruled that actual proof of innocence was no reason to stop an execution, as an example vof conservative thinking here.
+32
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Scalia really was just an unbelievable piece of shit
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
It should yes. Especially in a death penalty case. But the US legal system, even the more liberal parts of it, has been extremely resistant to going back and righting wrongs, instead preferring a "shrugged shoulders, sorry not sorry" attitude about it. And many wrongly convicted people who prove they're innocent have to fight tooth and nail to get even an inch back from the state when they should be getting miles. And none of the prosecutors who took part in the ethical misconduct that put those people behind bars EVER get punished for it.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
It should yes. Especially in a death penalty case. But the US legal system, even the more liberal parts of it, has been extremely resistant to going back and righting wrongs, instead preferring a "shrugged shoulders, sorry not sorry" attitude about it. And many wrongly convicted people who prove they're innocent have to fight tooth and nail to get even an inch back from the state when they should be getting miles.
Remember how horrendous the legal community's response was to the Brock Turner judge getting recalled.
The legal community really really hate being judged or held to account.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
It should yes. Especially in a death penalty case. But the US legal system, even the more liberal parts of it, has been extremely resistant to going back and righting wrongs, instead preferring a "shrugged shoulders, sorry not sorry" attitude about it. And many wrongly convicted people who prove they're innocent have to fight tooth and nail to get even an inch back from the state when they should be getting miles.
Remember how horrendous the legal community's response was to the Brock Turner judge getting recalled.
The legal community really really hate being judged or held to account.
As I saw pointed out elsewhere, barratry is functionally a dead letter, as we don't hold lawyers accountable for their behavior anymore. Worse, we paper over this lack of oversight with arguments such as "everyone is entitled to a defense", which is used to try to argue that holding someone like Neal Katyan accountable for defending the abuses of corporations will lead to the slippery slope of indignant and infamous defendants being unable to secure representation. The folks over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money have been doing a series on how law school by design churns out lawyers with defective ethical compasses:
Instead of continuing to argue about these ideas in public, the American legal community largely decided to close ranks around a highly ideological understanding of professionalism and independence that happens to support the right of an elite attorney to make a fortune. Now any time someone—take, for example, Richard Kahlenberg, who went to Harvard Law and wrote a book about how that institution turns would-be idealists into corporate stooges in training—broaches concerns like Berle’s, they are met immediately with derisive sneers from law professors about not understanding the majesty of the legal profession.
People like those law professors and Neal Katyal illustrate something I wish more professional Democrats understood: The professional norms of the political class are not only not a substitute for actual values, they are, frequently, actively harmful to the project of liberalism these people claim to be advancing.
This belief that “everyone deserves competent representation” has spilled over into industries like public relations and lobbying, where it has even less of a basis in tradition or law. It is the official mantra of people who actually believe that they, themselves, deserve to receive money from ethically dubious entities in exchange for providing ethically dubious services—all without having to feel bad about it at any point or consider it in conflict with their ostensibly liberal worldviews.
The members of SCOTUS who voted to allow this execution are murderers. They prioritized this so they could kill a person before an administration that would not have killed him was sworn in, no other reason.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
Honestly, I'm not too mad about this. I am pro capital punishment, and these people are bone fide monsters. And I read through the cases on a few of them, the evidence against them is quite substantial.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
To a point, procedure needs to trump justice, because "justice" is a nebulous concept subject to abuse. If i factually murder a bus full of kids, but the evidence leading to my conviction was obtained illegally, that conviction should be thrown out, even if the just thing is for me to be punished for my crimes. Because otherwise you reward the justice system for violating my rights, which is very no bueno (and pretty much how the justice system currently operates).
Ideally, I think we need to follow procedure, with the caveat that when in doubt, decide in favor of the individual against the state. If the state fucks up and the individual is guilty, follow procedure and let the individual go free. If the state fucks up and the individual is innocent, ignore procedure and let the individual go free.
This will result in more guilty people going free. But it's the least bad option when the alternative is the state just bulldozing over human rights.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
That's the reason this has continually been struck down, because it's telling as hell that they just won't ban it across the board. This isn't about anything other than naked bigotry.
You aren't gonna impeach anyone. Not even close. Given the map Democrats are barely capable of scrapping together a bare majority it would take to maybe pack the courts. It's basically impossible for them to get anywhere near the numbers needed to even potentially impeach a justice.
Yeah, given the makeup of the states responsible for the Senate, even getting the right number of Senators isn't enough.
Manchin might, I stress MIGHT, be willing to remove the filibuster. And there's a non-zero chance he would be on board with packing the courts. But I don’t see him ever being in favor of impeachment of Justices, let alone three.
And there may be a dozen or so Senators you could elect in certain states that would be to the left of Manchin. But even if a Senate had 100 Democrats, 34+ would only get there by being to the right of Manchin.
Only way a Justice gets impeached, is if there's clear and irrefutable non-partisan criminality involved. And even then, Republicans would be resistant. Because all Republicans are assholes.
Of the six Roman Catholic Justices only Sotomayor said she would have granted the request (to be fair, Gorsuch is RC adjacent). I had foolishly hoped that Barret would actually follow church teaching and vote to stay the execution, but as usual they all seem to adhere to the Scalia doctrine that RC doctrine is wrong and that America's racist death machine is A O K!
No, there will be a moratorium on Federal executions in just over a month. Which is why they have to get all these killings in now. The next President isn't pro-life.
I am myself probably a bit biased, since I have no faith in the US legal system whatsoever.
Prosecutors put innocent people in jail because they can't afford a defense and prosecutors just want to win, defense attorneys get guilty people off if they're rich, judges rule based on political belief and not the law. It's all arbitrary and devoid of justice.
Working in the courts will show you how much of the justice system is built on personal relationships, it really can be totally arbitrary.
Wait, really? That seems like the most ethical course of action, and I would be pleasantly shocked out of my mind if she actually did that.
I would like our judges to put their deeply held religious beliefs on mute when they rule, but that's generally not how deeply held beliefs work for most humans.
There's been multiple studies done that show judges handing out harsher punishments later in the workday than they do in the morning. Or that they rule more harshly when they're hungry. Or their favorite football team has lost. It really is a crap shoot.
It's also apparently the only execution in a lame duck period since 1889.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Senior Buzzfeed Reporter
Briefs appear to have been filed by “New California” and “New Nevada” to join the Texas AG lawsuit. It’s not a typo as they explicitly mention being formed in response to the actions of the Governors of Nevada and California.
It’s the usual conservative separatist bullshit. They don’t actually mention an admiralty court but I think it’s implied.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Wait, so I can just file whatever state level claims I want, as long as I pretend I myself am a state?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
With this line of thought, we may have both solved the Senate problem, and also made it so much worse.
... Senator Brody.
They're rushing a whole bunch of executions before Biden's term. This is monstrous.
I've always said this was one of the biggest messages of Serial (the podcast). Once the system sets it's eyes on you, it can destroy your life easily and for utterly arbitrary reasons and there's little you can do about it.
No this is a friend of the court brief. Which, i think, you generally are free to file, but not sure. It obviously requires that there already be a case for you to file it for. I don't know about guarantees/whatever about it being read/accepted though.
This is kind of another level, in terms of cognitive dissonance. I would love to see their redline version of the constitution where new states don't need to be accepted the union but still have equal standing in the courts.
Or any standing!
It's so clear cut that it manages to make less sense than the whole "Ah-ha! But I am !ArbitraryDescriptor, and this warrant is for ArbitraryDescriptor!"
Barr just really wants to kill some motherfuckers before they make him stop.
My Dad and Stepmom just started going back to church based on the logic "if people can go in and out of Walmart all day every day, why can't churches have people in them for two hours once or twice a week?"
Apparently only a few people were wearing masks.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The person they executed last night didn't even kill anyone.
And the prosecutor hid information which caused 5 of the jury to change their mind upon learning it
That's before we get to the number of people executed who didn't do *anything* they're accused of.
Wait, wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial normally?
The courts have this strange idea that procedure should trump justice. "Yes, this all looks very convincing but you aren't allowed to appeal anymore, off to the gallows with you!"
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Scalia ruled that actual proof of innocence was no reason to stop an execution, as an example vof conservative thinking here.
Not unbelievable, just astonishing at every turn.
It should yes. Especially in a death penalty case. But the US legal system, even the more liberal parts of it, has been extremely resistant to going back and righting wrongs, instead preferring a "shrugged shoulders, sorry not sorry" attitude about it. And many wrongly convicted people who prove they're innocent have to fight tooth and nail to get even an inch back from the state when they should be getting miles. And none of the prosecutors who took part in the ethical misconduct that put those people behind bars EVER get punished for it.
Remember how horrendous the legal community's response was to the Brock Turner judge getting recalled.
The legal community really really hate being judged or held to account.
As I saw pointed out elsewhere, barratry is functionally a dead letter, as we don't hold lawyers accountable for their behavior anymore. Worse, we paper over this lack of oversight with arguments such as "everyone is entitled to a defense", which is used to try to argue that holding someone like Neal Katyan accountable for defending the abuses of corporations will lead to the slippery slope of indignant and infamous defendants being unable to secure representation. The folks over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money have been doing a series on how law school by design churns out lawyers with defective ethical compasses:
To a point, procedure needs to trump justice, because "justice" is a nebulous concept subject to abuse. If i factually murder a bus full of kids, but the evidence leading to my conviction was obtained illegally, that conviction should be thrown out, even if the just thing is for me to be punished for my crimes. Because otherwise you reward the justice system for violating my rights, which is very no bueno (and pretty much how the justice system currently operates).
Ideally, I think we need to follow procedure, with the caveat that when in doubt, decide in favor of the individual against the state. If the state fucks up and the individual is guilty, follow procedure and let the individual go free. If the state fucks up and the individual is innocent, ignore procedure and let the individual go free.
This will result in more guilty people going free. But it's the least bad option when the alternative is the state just bulldozing over human rights.